Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri A.N.Bhargava alongwith Sri G.C.Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Through this writ petition prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow in suo motu Revision No. 813 of 2005-06.

3. The aforesaid revision has been maintained with respect to six cases, i.e. 1. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sri Ram and others; 2. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam; 3. Avon Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam and others; 4. Vinod Kumar v. Nagar Nigam and others; 5. Vinod Kumar and others v. Nagar Nigam and 6. Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam.

4. The petitioner is concerned with Case No. 4/2000 (Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Nagar Nigam, Moradabad) by which on the agreement of the parties the exchange of land under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) was allowed with respect to Gata No. 245 M measuring 0.802 Hec. situated in Village Harthala, Ahatmali, Moradabad by expunging the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad and recording the name of Nagar Nigam and over Plot Nos. 386 measuring about 0.085 Hec., 460 measuring about 0.243 Hec., 469 measuring about 0.474 Hec. total of three plots measuring about 0.802 Hec. ordered for recording the name of Santosha Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Directors, Sri Mohd. Umar Farooq son of Sri Mohd. Rashid and Sri Mohd. Akbar son of Sri Mohd Arshad.

5. It appears that in certain other cases too land of Nagar Nigam was exchanged with other persons. Learned Member, Board of Revenue in suo motu proceeding under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the Act of 1901) has entertained the aforesaid revision and stayed the order of exchange dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 and transmitted the matter before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad after the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Allahabad for adjudication.

6. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed in which on 26.5.2006 the following order was passed:

“It is submitted by Sri Shashi Nandan learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Board or Revenue could not exercising powers under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act pass order in revision arising out of proceedings under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. It is also submitted that in view of the division of powers between the Board of Revenue at Allahabad and Lucknow, the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow could not have taken suo motu cognisance and has passed the impugned order.

Standing counsel represents respondents 1, 2 and 5. Nagar Nigam is represented by Sri Prem Chand. The respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter-affidavit. The petitioner will have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder-affidavit. List the writ petition on 24.7.2006.

Until the date of next listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 3.5.2006 before the Board of Revenue shall remain stayed.”

7. Pursuant thereto counter-affidavit has been filed by the State stating therein that the revision could be entertained under Section 219 of the Act, 1901 at Lucknow too as initial order of exchange was contrary to the provisions of the law.

8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on 23.11.2015 the following order was passed by this Court:

“The petitioner’s case is limited only with regard to the decision dated 11.9.2000 passed in Case No. 4/2000 by the Sub Divisional Officer Moradabad. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order was passed under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 195